DaVinci

I think only you can answer this question. I can't tell you why you would hear an argument and then forget it when dealing with that subject. That is why I am asking you all these questions.

So how does that relate to writing fiction?

Having come from the art world I agree with some of what he is saying, but a lot of what he says is just snobbery. Somone who teaches graduate students should have a better understanding of art history and this video is very telling that he doesn't.

You didn't really answer my question. Why is it a blind spot? Why do you "blank out"? "Blanking out" and not remembering stuff sounds like something someone would do to cover up past trauma. Do you associate writing fictional worlds with trauma?

That last caller sounded extremely nervous with all the fumbling through descriptions. ... As for Stef's take on magic he basically says magic = madness. An interesting take on it for sure, (though I have my own take), but why do you think it is a "blind spot" for you? You said you understood him, but didn't understand him and then didn't remember what he said. Maybe you just disagree with his take? What is your view on magic in fiction?

Agreed.

Thanks for the response. Well, I percieve him as someone who claims to be reasonable but really isn't. This might not be a problem if he was only behaving that way towards himself. The issue, however, has become that he talks about how he thinks the world should be and should behave, and how he thinks I should be and behave, and yet he is not open to hearing the truth about our parents, he is not open to hearing about his own behavior, and he judges anyone who does not conform to his view of the world as bad. Bad friends, bad family, or just bad people in general. That is why I'm aksing for the views of other people on this subject. It seems odd to me to keep engaging with someone who I know is hypocritical. Wouldn't I be engaging in a form of self torture by continuing to interact with him?

I'm not arguing for killing anyone, and it is not about smelling smoke, it is about inhaling smoke that you don't want to inhale. If it is just aesthetic to not want smoke in your lungs then I would say that the topic needs to move to the science of what happens to the lungs when exposed to prolonged periods of inhailing smoke to show whether there is actual damage to the lungs or other bodily organs.

Thanks for the response! It is not that he repeats back family propaganda specifically as much as he repeats the same general "Hey, you're alive aren't you? So why does it matter what happened as a kid" type statement. It is being used as a way to gloss over our parents responsibility and, I think, craft for himself a view of the world that in his eyes can't be countered by truth, because if there is no such thing as truth then every opinion is just as valid as every other opinion. I think your point about self attack is something I have been trying to watch out for as I have caught myself doing it after talking with him, which I think is one of the problems I have with him. He is maniplative in that way. As I said he tries to play up morality and repsponsibility as entirely subjective, and so I have caught myself after talking with him attacking myself for being bad, or wrong. It's not something I do anymore since I have become conscious of it, but it is still there, if that makes sense. Thanks for responding! That is what I have seen in the past few years. Someone who doesn't share my values. As I mentioned in the post above he is manipulative, and so not sharing values might not be a big deal if he wasn't manipulating sitatuions that involve us both. Our relationship really isn't much more than bringing out those dusty memories to look at them without discussing anything that created them or how the people who were responsible are responsible.

So then the issue is intent? But why is the latter violating NAP and the former isn't? What if I don't want to breathe in their smoke?

I'll try to explain the issues I have been having with him as simply as possible. Any thoughts on this issue are welcome. Long story short, we disagree about our parents and their responsibility in our lives. I say that our parents were completely responsible for our early lives and we are now responsible for fixing any damages they caused and improving oursleves, and my brother says they are not responsible for anything. That what happened happened and I could have been born as a starving kid in Africa, so I shouldn't even bother thinking about it. That I am alive and that is what matters. Now while I don't diasgree with trying to put my life into perspective it has nothing to do with the crap our parents did, nor does it mean that I should have a relationship with them or be okay with it. This is where our arguments get heated and he usually hangs up on me. He continues to have a relationship with our mom where as I stopped talking to her and when I question why he wants to have a relationship with someone who he knows treated him like crap, and who he admits he doesn't love he gets mad. He claims that "You have a problem with mom that I don't" and when I try to correct him and tell him that it is not "a problem", just that our mom is responsible for her behavior, and how she treated us he responds with this "They did the best they could" argument or otherwise just doesn't want to hear it. So in this process I've found that I just can't talk with my brother about things that genuiinely matter. We can talk about movies, or books and agree, but when we get to our family I feel like he is just choosing to ignore that they were bad parents to make himself feel better and I should do the same. I honestly feel like it might be time to cut my losses and stop talking to him. Because if we can't talk about things that really matter then how much of a relationship do we really have? So if anyone has any thoughts on this issue please respond. Has anyone been through something similar? Is there a better way I can approach someone who is difficult to talk to? How many times do you keep talking to someone before you decide to stop wasting your time?

So what is the difference between someone who pollutes by, let's say, starting a fire in their backyard and the smoke blows over into your house, and someone who slips you little doses of poison in your food?

So what would be the difference between a "dispute resolution organization" and a mercenary if they both sometimes are hired as security/protection? Granted a mercenary has a reputation of being more openly hostile and uses questionable methods, but does that description really fit someone hired to defend property? Would DRO's be limited to non-violent interactions? Would it be different if the samurai were already advertising themselves as "security for hire"? In this case it is comparing one fictional example to another to see how they might compare and contrast. Especially given that in the movie you have the story taking place effectively in the "absence" of government. So, yeah, practical examples from our world today might not be too much help in talking about a movie, or how a future society might function, but in terms of movies it is the closest thing I have seen to something that would resemble how a future society might handle an extreme situation. In the case of your job I wonder how much your duties would really change in a stateless society? If I remember correctly Kurosawa said that the speech Kikuchiyo gives the samurai was his way of apologizing for what those in his family lineage did in the past. Given the way he preferred a more realistic approach to depicting violence I can see how he might have had some very strong feelings about the way society works. I think you are probably right about the bandits. Do you agree with the above posts that the samurai are essentially mercenaries? What separates a mercenary from a security guard? Or from a member of a private army?

What would be the point of staying in such a toxic environment? What do you get out of staying other than rage and pain?

It actually reminds me of the "thirsty man in the desert" scenario where a man suffering from dehydration in the desert is offered a bottle of water in exchange for signing away everything he owns. He signs the contract and gets the water. Even Stefan has said that in a truly free society that this contract would not be honored. So I guess the question becomes can you be as thirsty for knowledge as you are for water? In a world built on splitting the family, disposing of dad, and cramming children into an outdated model of education that squashes any potential of being highly successful, I would say there is a good case to make that education is survival in this world. As I see it the only real reason to pay the loan would be the same reason you pay the mob. So you don't get fitted for cement shoes.

Can you explain a situation to me where someone agreed to some terms where they do not make good on it and it is not considered theft?

I suppose you could compare it to Jumanji in that sense. Maybe Jumanji is just as potent a story as the Matrix for describing the perils of the world.

It seems the message of this place is a bit mixed based on what you are saying. What I keep hearing from Stef and others here is that the world is built on an illusion. A narrative. A fiction. We are told to see the farm is to leave it. But, you have made "positive obligations", so stay in the farm and pay them or else be immoral. So is leaving the farm just an idea to make me feel good about the state of my life like religion?

This has been an interesting thread. I'm not sure quite how to respond without rambling. I understand that honesty is important and paying back the loan is in his best interest, but I find it odd that so many people are advocating for the repayment of the loan as if we are not drowning in a world built on lies, illusions, mysticism and tyranny. This is clearly not utopia. I think everyone here knows the truth about the world we were all born into, and yet what I hear is, well you consumed the resources of the Matrix, so plug back in and pay your due. It just sounds... off.

There is also this article: www.vox.com/xpress/2014/11/25/7285265/darren-wilson-grand-jury I would like to hear what others here think about this

Vampires, huh. I generally stay away from anything with vampires in it. What sets this vampire story apart from every other one? Just that it is set in New Orleans?

Well said. I've been finding it very hard to not comment on many of the posts that have been appearing in my f-book feed. I am seeing people get caught up in the emotion of the narrative and I feel a desire to respond, but I know people will see my views as ignorant, or racist, or insensitive. Especially if I bring up what you just did and try to talk about the things that have an effect on all of us. That will be taking as trying to change the subject, or using the situation to push an agenda.

Rioters were bussed in? Like, someone hired rioters, put them on a bus, and drove them to this town?

What about the functioning of DRO's and things like that? Aren't those rules that people are agreeing to abide by?

For those who have not seen the movie I recommend watching it as it is a classic. For those who have, or don't know the story, but don't want to watch the movie, the plot centers around a group of farmers who hire samurai to protect them from an army of bandits who have come to steal their harvest, and take their women. So, in the case of this movie are the Samurai an example of a DRO? Granted the world that the Seven Samurai takes place in has a government, but within the bubble of the story all we see are peasant rice farmers, samurai, and bandits and the dispute surrounding the farmers rice and well being. Is this an example of how an anarchic society might function? Would a DRO function on the level of hiring samurai? Even in situations like this one which are incredibly violent?